[arin-ppml] IANA IPv4 /8 burn rate....
stephen at sprunk.org
Thu Aug 28 23:41:37 EDT 2008
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> Everyone who assumes that moving to IPv6 would be better
> has I think already provided a boatload of arguments as to why
> their way would be better.
> But I have not really heard any arguments from the people who
> want to stay with IPv4 as to why their way would be better.
I think that answer is simple: the short-term cost of adding more NAT is
lower than the short-term cost of moving everything to IPv6. There's a
lot of stuff that _still_ doesn't work (well or at all) with IPv6,
despite over a decade of work and sweeping claims by IPv6 supporters, so
the cost of the latter option isn't even calculable because it's not
possible -- but even the parts that are possible will undoubtedly cost
more, in the short term, than just tossing a few more NAT boxes into the
I think everyone is in agreement that the long-term costs of IPv6 are
cheaper than IPv4+NAT; what we're really debating is if and when that
transition will happen and what to do in the meantime.
More information about the ARIN-PPML